tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-82740934822187343732024-03-13T08:25:42.351-07:00Amirica"I'm just a radical, not on sabbatical." - Chuck D.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger141125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-59578515770864571592019-09-29T20:36:00.002-07:002019-09-29T20:36:44.858-07:00Once-Saved-Always-Saved?<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The Good Shepherd passage from St. John's Gospel was recently used by my good Protestant (specifically Calvinist) friend to support the once-saved-always-saved doctrine. In particular, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A25&version=NKJV">John 10:25</a> ("no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand") was used as a key proof text. A brief response:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The Greek terms for “hearing” (<i>akouōn</i>) and “believing” (<i>pisteuōn</i>) express <i>ongoing</i> actions. True, those in the fold cannot be snatched away, but one who does not <i>continue</i> to hear (one who does not continue to believe) removes <i>himself</i> from the fold. Being assured of my salvation is a pleasant thought, and I totally get why many are drawn to this idea. But it is a false teaching.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-13729871131062675652019-08-06T08:51:00.001-07:002019-08-06T08:51:25.704-07:00Reflections on El Paso and Dayton<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Short of an apocalyptic event or a total sociopolitical revolution, mass killings will not likely cease or significantly diminish. Without fundamental change, there is little hope.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Why? Because complex problems requires complex solutions, and complex solutions are rarely if ever satisfactorily offered by one or the other faction, alone. Consider just four of the explanations typically offered, <i>all</i> of which have (at least on occasion) some merit:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">1. Nihilism/Disbelief (conservative explanation - in my view, this is the root from which the remaining problems sprout)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">2. Gun accessibility (liberal explanation)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">3. Racism (liberal explanation)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">4. Fatherless children (conservative explanation)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Aside from corruption in our political system, a huge impediment to a holistic solution is ideological dogmatism, which prevents each side from recognizing the merits of the other's diagnoses and prescriptions.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-88480283400497221162019-06-16T20:45:00.002-07:002019-06-30T06:36:10.188-07:00On the Peculiar Way Christ Saved the WorldClick <a href="https://pemptousia.com/2017/08/on-the-peculiar-way-christ-saved-the-world/">here</a> to read.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-80806295355232480962019-06-16T20:43:00.000-07:002019-06-16T20:43:08.540-07:00The Politics of Suicide in Post-Christian America<span style="font-size: large;">Excerpt:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I recently discovered a depressing statistic. While analyzing data from the World Bank, I learned that the U.S. was among the 10 countries that experienced the largest increase in the number of reported suicides throughout the 2005-2015 period, from 11.7 to 14.3 per 100,000 people. There is no shortage of possible causes to which one could attribute this 22 percent increase. As a political scientist who studies the intersections between faith and politics, I was naturally curious about (a) whether religious decline in the U.S. could be among the plausible explanations, and, if so, (b) what political factors might account for this decline.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Click <a href="https://www.newoxfordreview.org/documents/the-politics-of-suicide-in-post-christian-america/">here</a> to read more.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-35532276514538831972019-06-16T20:36:00.001-07:002019-06-30T06:34:36.827-07:00Human Suffering and the Reality of a Loving God<span style="font-size: large;">There are two kinds of Christians: those of experiential faith, and those of theoretical faith. Those in the former category encounter God directly, and know - not merely believe - that He exists, even if they encounter things that are troubling and contradict their preconceptions of God.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">If you are like most Christians, you fall in the latter category; in other words, you are not a mystic. For you, God’s existence is a persuasive theory, not a personally-experienced truth. You may have been swayed by the arguments of philosophers like William Lane Craig, but you have yet to attain the direct insight of mystics like St. Seraphim of Sarov. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">As a corollary, your faith has probably been shaken at least once in your life by the reality of human suffering. This is understandable; any theoretical Christian with a shred of compassion will acknowledge that such heartrending manifestations of suffering as the dying child can be a huge stumbling block to one’s faith. Indeed, I would prefer the atheist whose compassion for others drove him to disbelief to the theoretical Christian whose indifference to suffering explains why he has remained steadfast in his faith in spite of it.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">From a strictly rational perspective, however, suffering cannot be taken to be a stand-alone reason to doubt God's existence.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Click <a href="https://russian-faith.com/explaining-orthodoxy/human-suffering-and-reality-loving-god-n1712">here</a> to read more.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-23961893150409020332019-06-16T20:31:00.003-07:002019-06-16T20:31:39.918-07:00Atheism and Close-Mindedness <span style="font-size: large;">Excerpt:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">When I was first exposed to the Christian faith, I was introduced to a belief system replete with claims of extraordinary events. But that didn’t deter me from investigating it. True, science cannot account for, say, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. But does this necessarily mean that these events did not or cannot occur (click here for my piece on the Virgin Birth and miracles, in general)? The discipline of science is defined by a particular method used to acquire knowledge. To say that something is “scientifically impossible” is merely to say that it is methodologically impossible; not that something has been disproven, but that it can’t be proven through methods proper to that discipline. But scientific impossibility doesn’t mean <i>phenomenological</i> impossibility; if we were to unwittingly equate the two, then we must also be prepared to say that the burning of Sardis – along with countless other historical events – never occurred.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Click <a href="http://orthochristian.com/117285.html">here</a> to read more.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-21939357261651233492019-06-16T20:27:00.001-07:002019-06-30T06:35:03.238-07:00 The “D” Word: Why Dogmas Matter<span style="font-size: large;">“I don’t have a problem with religion, I just don’t like dogmas.” Statements like this are reflective of the growing disdain that people have for religious doctrine. Even many traditional Christian believers seem reluctant to use the word “dogma”, as they are aware of its negative connotations. For many, this term has come to signify a belief that can’t be proven, and to which only close-minded people can subscribe. In this short essay, I’m going to address this view from a (not necessarily exclusively) Eastern Orthodox perspective.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Click <a href="https://pemptousia.com/2015/05/the-d-word-why-dogmas-matter/">here</a> to read more.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-80101503397725061492019-06-16T20:22:00.003-07:002019-06-16T20:22:59.864-07:00Can a Christian be a Social Liberal?<span style="font-size: large;">Excerpt:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In this essay, I am particularly concerned with the compatibility between Christianity and the philosophy of those frequently described as “socially liberal”—that is, those who subscribe to the “harm principle” articulated by J.S. Mill, which holds that “no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others” (Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, p. xxi). It is my contention that this principle is fundamentally incompatible with Christian teaching.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Click <a href="https://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/can-a-christian-be-a-social-liberal">here</a> to read more.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-18069874037453805772019-06-16T20:20:00.002-07:002019-06-16T20:20:08.632-07:00The Christmas Story in an Era of Irrational Skepticism<span style="font-size: large;">Excerpt:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">When we accept the false assumption that miracles are a logical impossibility, we become vulnerable to accepting, without demanding much if any evidence, all sorts of novel, naturalistic explanations for Christ’s birth. Let us undo this mental shackle and approach the Nativity this Christmas season with a truly open mind.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Click <a href="https://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/reflections-christmas-story-era-irrational-skepticism">here</a> to read more.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-15028148993323919392019-06-16T20:14:00.005-07:002019-06-30T06:35:28.172-07:00How Monasticism Testifies to God’s Reality<span style="font-size: large;">Over the years, I have become acquainted with various logical arguments for the existence of God—some I find more convincing than others. Of course, the strongest evidence comes from direct experience, for God is a person to be mystically encountered, not an abstraction to be logically deduced. This should not be taken to imply that logic has no role to play a role in one’s spiritual life. On the contrary, logic can be used to convince someone that such an experience is worth pursuing in the first place.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The strongest argument for me—an argument not normally used to evidence God’s reality—happens to be a simple one: the existence of monasticism. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Click <a href="https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/monasticism-testifies-gods-reality">here</a> to read more.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-13493375820603517792019-06-16T20:09:00.001-07:002019-06-30T06:36:31.367-07:00Sola Scriptura and the Secularization of America<span style="font-size: large;">During her confirmation hearing last September, Notre Dame law professor, Amy Coney Barrett, was openly interrogated about her faith. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) brazenly uttered the now infamous words, “the dogma lives loudly within you,” and went on to explain why that is “of concern” to her. This is but one manifestation of a new trend—one that many Christians correctly regard as ominous. How did we get to this point?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I am going to argue that the current state of affairs is the partial result of developments that transpired 500 years ago. My contention is that those who sought to reform Christianity in the West ironically set in motion a process that has increasingly diminished its influence on society.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This essay will focus on one of the foundational principles of the Protestant Reformation: <i>sola scriptura</i>. It is the doctrine that the Bible, alone, holds religious authority for the Christian.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Click <a href="https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/11/reformation-secularization-america-amir-azarvan.html">here</a> to read more.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-9405479658150690062019-06-16T19:55:00.001-07:002019-06-16T19:55:59.617-07:00Why You Should Be a “Religious Fanatic”<div style="text-align: right;">
<i><span style="font-size: large;">My son, give me your heart…</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<i><span style="font-size: large;">Proverbs 23:26</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">When I was younger and more naïve, I assumed that when somebody identified as a Christian, he meant it. That is, I assumed that his professed faith shaped his entire life; that he sought, as did Elder Sophrony of Essex, to make God’s “commandments ... the sole law of [his] being on this earth and in all eternity.”1 But in this age of lukewarm Christianity, many seem to live by some variant of the saying, “It’s good to have a religion, but one shouldn’t be fanatical about it.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This common advice is quite reasonable, of course, depending on how one defines “fanaticism”. Consider how St. Porphyrios of Kafsokalivia employed the term:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />“Fanaticism has nothing to do with Christ. Be a true Christian. Then you won’t leap to conclusions about anybody, but your love will ‘cover all things’...You will care for a Muslim when he is need, speak to him and keep company with him.”</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Here fanaticism seems to be understood as a tendency to judge or to withhold love from others, including nonbelievers, and it is certainly necessary that we resist these inclinations. But immediately prior to that excerpt, St. Porphyrios taught that “we should be zealots,” and he defined a zealot as “a person who loves Christ with all his soul.”3 When formulated abstractly, the principle that we ought to love Christ with <i>all</i> one’s soul is acceptable enough, but when we apply this principle in concrete situations, it inevitably strikes our more worldly friends and family as excessive, as “fanatical”. It is the zealous application of this principle that—in my experience, at any rate—is discouraged in the advice with which I began this essay. To be a fanatic, per this understanding, is to treat religion as an objectively true path to a transfigured life, instead of a safer, less transformative self-help strategy or recreation.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Now, why should you be a “religious fanatic” (or, if you prefer, a zealot)?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Click <a href="http://orthochristian.com/118115.html">here</a> to read more.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-60839387149797558322019-06-07T06:51:00.002-07:002019-06-07T06:51:18.797-07:00Abortions in 2015<span style="font-size: large;">The first ultrasound in this collection, which I finished compiling last night, is of a baby (or, if you prefer, "fetus") at 9 weeks' gestation. Over a third of all reported abortions in 2015 ended the lives of babies at this minimum level of fetal development (the number of babies aborted in this particular subset exceeded the entire population of Savannah, GA; as for the total number aborted that year, the figure is a few thousand babies short of the entire population of Minneapolis). I break the data down further in the remaining images. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-enAQAomtyKQ/XPprd-jCs3I/AAAAAAAAC78/xxlr8SaiSLo4X5gJ4_PFOv_Ygss97NDHwCLcBGAs/s1600/9%2BWeeks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="857" data-original-width="854" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-enAQAomtyKQ/XPprd-jCs3I/AAAAAAAAC78/xxlr8SaiSLo4X5gJ4_PFOv_Ygss97NDHwCLcBGAs/s320/9%2BWeeks.jpg" width="318" /></a></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cHVdhIOVvMo/XPpregWytWI/AAAAAAAAC8A/YEY3lbHXues4dKanpfZDy-Oi8W7wuh1fACLcBGAs/s1600/9-13%2BWeeks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="898" data-original-width="1512" height="190" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cHVdhIOVvMo/XPpregWytWI/AAAAAAAAC8A/YEY3lbHXues4dKanpfZDy-Oi8W7wuh1fACLcBGAs/s320/9-13%2BWeeks.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r-0b29E9eJc/XPprdtJOGzI/AAAAAAAAC7w/9vcmnbPYkGMEt357BZ3ghL7wtJcOYVbHACLcBGAs/s1600/14-15%2BWeeks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="577" data-original-width="1525" height="121" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r-0b29E9eJc/XPprdtJOGzI/AAAAAAAAC7w/9vcmnbPYkGMEt357BZ3ghL7wtJcOYVbHACLcBGAs/s320/14-15%2BWeeks.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qcRgxW9f0Zw/XPprdasrmvI/AAAAAAAAC7s/aYVPwpidZWgs6LT5bC1qY1ONu9GKP6-PACLcBGAs/s1600/16-17%2BWeeks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="602" data-original-width="1558" height="123" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qcRgxW9f0Zw/XPprdasrmvI/AAAAAAAAC7s/aYVPwpidZWgs6LT5bC1qY1ONu9GKP6-PACLcBGAs/s320/16-17%2BWeeks.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9KozlraCmqY/XPprdhs5xDI/AAAAAAAAC70/fkcb1hTBqgAJ2LsbLcFf1NYI2sxMqY_jwCLcBGAs/s1600/18-20%2BWeeks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="899" data-original-width="900" height="319" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9KozlraCmqY/XPprdhs5xDI/AAAAAAAAC70/fkcb1hTBqgAJ2LsbLcFf1NYI2sxMqY_jwCLcBGAs/s320/18-20%2BWeeks.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-98OvkLS3vEM/XPprd0uAK_I/AAAAAAAAC74/qURQYgTqCm4bc8RCygLASvKwSkR8urUdwCLcBGAs/s1600/21%2BWeeks%2Band%2BOver.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="898" data-original-width="1516" height="189" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-98OvkLS3vEM/XPprd0uAK_I/AAAAAAAAC74/qURQYgTqCm4bc8RCygLASvKwSkR8urUdwCLcBGAs/s320/21%2BWeeks%2Band%2BOver.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm">Data</a>: CDC. "Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.thebump.com/">Ultrasound images</a>: The BumpUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-43916573457948494182019-05-17T15:07:00.001-07:002019-06-07T07:09:38.858-07:00Do Men have the Right to an Opinion on Abortion?<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">An irate (former?) friend recently told me that I, a man, am too "damn opinionated" on abortion. This ridiculous claim that men, as such, have no right to an opinion on abortion (unless it's the "right" one, of course) rests on the following premise:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">You have no right to advocate for something or someone over whom another person has (or is believed to have) exclusive control or responsibility.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Although this premise may seem reasonable in the abstract, the obvious problem with this logic is that it implies that you also have no right to an opinion on how an exploitative boss treats his workers, on how repressive foreign governments treat their citizens, on how abusive parents treat their post-birth children, and so on. Although there's certainly a place for business rights, national sovereignty, and parental rights, among other things, it's clear enough that they're based on the same premise and aren't absolute. Unless you're some sort of libertarian (in which I case I'd still disagree with you, but that's for another post), you'll find that it's very difficult to argue consistently from this premise.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-80168612384202352302019-05-11T20:42:00.001-07:002019-06-07T06:51:54.185-07:00How to Respond to Pro-Choice Friends<span style="font-size: large;">Here are some brief responses to some of the more common questions you’ll hear from pro-choice friends. You’ll quickly notice a pattern here, and this is because most answers to questions put forward by abortion rights advocates can be deduced from a simple premise: Life begins at conception. Some don't fully appreciate the implications that this familiar proposition carries for the abortion debate. If the premise is true, then, unless you support infanticide (and, unfortunately, there appears to be a growing number of people who do), then you're bound to agree that almost any circumstance legitimating abortion also legitimates the killing of newborns.</span><br />
<br />
<img alt="No photo description available." src="https://scontent.fatl1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/50870620_10157030224784394_1736274829016825856_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_eui2=AeFHTdz5ihSj7fNXvQtvQ16vWFv7kMY4VNcuoAH0cSgiS1V64O3K10CDYstZF-bG24MSY5MuPyY6etfB8x3nZ4EwIleZSeHYo6HtxQieVn8GEA&_nc_ht=scontent.fatl1-2.fna&oh=91a38915c1d99951e28736e7f9fea215&oe=5D632158" />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-32365448563672234432018-12-08T17:19:00.004-08:002019-06-16T10:06:25.061-07:00Is God a Sexual Predator?<span style="font-size: large;">A professor recently tweeted that God is a sexual predator for having impregnated Mary "without her consent." I won't give this man (an apparent Satanist, I've read) direct publicity; you can find his tweet easily enough if you're interested. Here's a brief explanation on why he probably should never, ever dabble in religion again:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Mary actually does give her consent in Luke 1:38: "Let it be to me according to your word." "But," you might object, "How relevant is her consent when the angel tells her that she <i>will</i> conceive Jesus? Can Mary resist the will of the omnipotent God?" As the professor, himself, noted in his inane tweet, the Christian God is omniscient. So, to ask for something (e.g., consent) that you, in your omniscience, <i>know</i> will be given, is kind of a waste of time. Mary wouldn't have been chosen in the first place were it not for God's foreknowledge of her consent. Her very quality of being "full of grace" consists in her foreknown willingness to sacrifice herself for our salvation.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-73690844304727638002018-10-15T10:32:00.000-07:002019-06-16T10:26:08.459-07:00Timing is Everything: On the Divinity of Christ<span style="font-size: large;">Although Christ alludes to His divinity on many occasions (e.g., John 8:58), much is often made of the fact that He doesn't affirm it explicitly. "If he were really God," many ask, "why wouldn't he just say so in a clear, unequivocal way?"</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">An answer to this question is intimated in <a href="https://www.goarch.org/chapel/-/chapel/date-results?p_auth=mX4mQ5yK">today's Gospel reading</a> (Luke 9:18-22). In this passage, Jesus asks Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" After answering that He is the "Christ of God", Jesus surprisingly orders him to keep this truth secret. For "everything there is a season" (Ecc. 3:1), and it wasn't yet the "season" to publicly disclose that which Peter had confessed.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This, of course, doesn't prove Christ's divinity, but it shows that we can't deny it merely on the grounds that He wasn't as explicit about His true identity as we would have liked.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-54337536255387188642018-05-03T09:56:00.003-07:002019-06-16T10:06:59.816-07:00On God's Presence<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">"If God exists," many atheists ask us, "why doesn't he make himself present to us?"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Although this question appears reasonable, it is in reality patently absurd, and there are multiple ways to explain this absurdity. Here's just one:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">There's a mode of perception proper to every object. Scents are perceived through smelling, music through hearing, food through taste, and so on. All of these can be subsumed into the broader category of objects of sensual perception.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Now, the problem with the above question is that God is a <i>spirit</i>, and, as such, is normally perceived spiritually, not sensually. Why can't most of us perceive him spiritually? Because most of us are spiritually blind (most are not, as Christ puts it, "pure at heart"). But this doesn't disprove God's existence any more than a blind man's inability to perceive a visual object disproves its existence.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In other words, the above question is a loaded one, since it presupposes that God has <i>not</i> made himself present to us. Once we understand that he has, and if we work to sharpen our spiritual perception, we will one day discover that God is indeed "everywhere present and fillest all things," as we recite in the Trisagion Prayers.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-51717270420409594512018-02-07T07:41:00.001-08:002018-02-12T06:51:13.317-08:00A Biblical Standard for Evaluating the Jehovah’s Witnesses<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18pt;">If the Jehovah’s
Witnesses belong to the true "congregation" (i.e., their preferred
translation of <i>ekklēsia, </i>which is most often rendered as
"church"), then there must be scriptural evidence that their
particular </span><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18pt;">ekklēsia</span></i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18pt;"> is the one,
true, and visible body of Christ, which has existed in unbroken continuity
since its very foundation. I'll be using their own translation of the
Bible to support this particular standard.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Christ himself built his <i>ekklēsia</i> (<b>Matthew
16:18</b>). </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">The <i>ekklēsia</i> is the body of Christ (<b>Colossians
1:24</b>) and is therefore one, since Christ has only one body.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">The <i>ekklēsia</i> is “a” bulwark of truth (<b>1
Timothy 3:15</b>).[1] </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">The <i>ekklēsia</i> is a visible body.
For "if your brother commits a sin," how can you
"speak to the congregation [i.e, <i>ekklēsia</i>]" to
resolve the matter if you can't even find it? (<b>Matthew 18:15-17</b>). </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">The <i>ekklēsia</i> must be a <i>permanent</i> body
since Jesus says that not even the “gates of the Grave” (<b>Matthew 16:18</b>)
will overcome it.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br />
With these points in mind, the Jehovah's Witnesses should be asked the
following:</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">Where in history do we find anything remotely similar
to the <i>ekklēsia</i> of the Jehovah’s Witnesses?</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18.0pt;">If you believe that your <i>ekklēsia</i> was <i>the </i>original <i>ekklēsia</i>, but somehow went missing for a number of centuries (as is evidenced by the vast difference in beliefs and practices between you and Christians of the intervening period), shouldn’t we
conclude that the “gates of the Grave” did indeed overcome the <i>ekklēsia</i> until
Charles Taze Russel “resurrected” it in the 1870s? In other words,
did Jesus predict wrongly in Matthew 16:18?</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18pt;"><br clear="all" />
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">
</span><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">
</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18pt;">[1] The NWT inserts
the indefinite article “a” in this verse, presumably to imply that the <i>ekklēsia </i>is
but one “pillar and support of the truth” <i>among others</i>.
However, among the 28 renderings listed on <a href="http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/3-15.htm"><span style="color: blue;">Bible
Hub</span></a>, the vast majority (93%) translated <i>stylos </i>to
mean <i>the </i>pillar.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-74080769600790823392018-01-25T11:51:00.002-08:002018-01-25T11:55:43.958-08:00On the Shameful Defense of Trump's 'Sh--holes' Remark<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">"Well, the countries <i>are</i> sh--holes, aren't they?"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">To this pathetic attempt at defending Trump's alleged remarks, we should reply with honesty: "Well, many of these countries <i>are</i> in terrible shape - rife with poverty, corruption, repression, war in some cases, etc. So, I suppose you could describe them as sh--holes, but is that term necessary? Is it becoming of a president? Of a self-described Christian? Of any civilized adult? Do you want <i>your</i> children to grow up speaking this way?"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">That aside, the context of his alleged remarks points to something far more problematic than his characteristically churlish language. To be clear, I don’t believe that referring to countries as sh—holes, in itself, demonstrates racism. Is his parlance trashy? Obviously. Is it racist? Well, we can’t know until we examine the context in which he allegedly uttered these words.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">But the context doesn’t help, does it? After all, Trump doesn’t say, “Let’s <i>rescue</i> these people from their sh--holes by lifting our lamp beside the golden door!” Rather, he proclaims, “Keep, ancient sh--hole lands, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Keep your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free.” In doing so, he essentially equates the “sh--holes” with the peoples living there, drawing no distinction between those who would likely contribute to our society and those who would not. They’re all little sh—s to our sick and contagious president.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I’m unashamed to express this fact to my students. Am I politically biased in doing so? Only if you believe that calling countries s--holes is a Republican value.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-51188582908677541022017-12-19T18:42:00.002-08:002017-12-19T18:42:28.005-08:00One of the Biggest Challenges of Contemporary Christianity<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Suppose a buddy pointed to a couple of really heavy metal bars, and said "Hey, why don't you grab these heavy things and lift them up, put them down, repeat these steps a couple dozen times, and consequently suffer some ridiculous soreness afterwards!" If I knew nothing about weightlifting and its health benefits, I'd probably reply, "Hey, why don't you go to hell?" If, however, my buddy explained how weight-lifting strengthens bone density, burns fat, improves sleep (among so many other things), then I'd realize that the benefits outweigh the costs.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The first scenario represents our current understanding of the many "rules" of Christianity, especially as they relate to sex. The challenge of contemporary Christianity isn't simply to enumerate its rules, but to <i>explain why</i> they're necessary. The problem in meeting this challenge, of course, is that many Christians, themselves, have forgotten how compliance with these rules prepares one for the ineffable joy that we <i>all</i> seek.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-68038847405016148922017-10-20T19:58:00.003-07:002017-10-21T05:59:16.224-07:00Modest is Hottest<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Encouraging women to dress modestly doesn’t excuse sex crime any more than urging people to stay away from a dangerous street excuses mugging.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Academic research (not to mention common sense) points to the role that modest dressing plays in reducing - though not eliminating - the likelihood of falling victim to sexual crime. In Vali and Rizzo’s apparently well-cited <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306624X9103500208">1991 study</a>, a large majority of psychiatrists expressed the belief that revealing attire puts young women at risk of sex crimes. Numerous studies have shown that people infer (correctly or otherwise) sexual information about a woman from her dressing style (e.g., see <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-017-0101-5#Tab1">Lennon <i>et al</i>. 2017</a>). I do know of one study - a <a href="http://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1202&context=jiws">2010 survey</a> of Israeli college students - that seems to contradict what I’m arguing. Moor finds no significant relationship between dressing style and sexual victimization. However, setting aside the question of whether these findings hold relevance for Americans, it’s noteworthy that victims were evidently not asked about their attire <i>at the time of</i> their victimization.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Sex crime is one of many issues that highlights the frequent tension between freedom and safety, forcing each of us to decide which of these two should weigh more heavily. I personally choose a woman’s safety over her freedom to dress immodestly. In many regards (pornography being another example), "sexual freedom" endangers women, plain and simple. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">To put it boldly, I, a social conservative, just might be a stronger proponent of women's safety than today's feminists.</span><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-72903353386883069632017-10-12T11:12:00.002-07:002019-06-16T10:07:35.410-07:00Another Foolish Atheist Meme<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Here's another absurd meme.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kXE61MjAT3E/Wd-wkZ1SSrI/AAAAAAAACXk/krOANNh0z-IjphjNurXtx8fDVv5OnEISwCLcBGAs/s1600/22007941_1740293189378492_5004968707594384276_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="641" data-original-width="960" height="213" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kXE61MjAT3E/Wd-wkZ1SSrI/AAAAAAAACXk/krOANNh0z-IjphjNurXtx8fDVv5OnEISwCLcBGAs/s320/22007941_1740293189378492_5004968707594384276_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">There are times at which I think that the so-called "new atheists" should first be introduced to logic before the Logos.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Memes like this betray ignorance not only of religion, but also of the kind of logic on which sound science depends. To test a theory correctly, the scientist must ensure that there's <i>test validity</i>; that is, he must ensure that his test accurately measures what it’s intended to measure. By the same exact logic, if one wishes to "measure" a religion's validity, he must first "operationalize" it correctly. That is, he must understand what a religion actually teaches before he sets out to evaluate the teaching. The "new atheists" fail to do this at nearly every turn.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">What religion teaches the false dichotomy that a disease is cured by either God or man? At the most, you’d need Wikipedia - certainly not a theology degree - to learn that Christians believe that God normally works through his creation, even the worst of it (after all, their own scriptures record that God's will to suffer on our behalf was partially accomplished through the treachery of one of his very own disciples). When you hear someone say, “Thank God,” do you assume that he’s claiming to have witnessed God appear and directly benefit him in some way? Of course not. Christians (and I imagine adherents of most faiths) believe that all good things come from God, either directly or (in most cases) indirectly.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-34118234700169765442017-10-09T12:37:00.005-07:002019-06-16T10:08:13.311-07:00On the Apparent Contradiction Between the Human and Divine Wills<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">God does not predestine people to be either good or evil. What he does predestine, it seems to me, is the spatio-temporal placement of good and evil people so as to ensure the fulfillment of his divine plan.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Herein, moreover, lies the key to solving the apparent paradox between free will and there being a divine plan. Suppose I decide to throw a party. I would choose to invite those who are likely to contribute to its fun, and exclude those who are not. In doing so, I would deprive no one of his freedom to either spread joy or kill it; I would simply be using my limited power to situate joyful and joyless people in such a way as to render my intended outcome - i.e., a joyous party - more likely.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Few people will think it extraordinary if my plan succeeds. Why, then, do many atheists see a contradiction between free will and there being a divine plan? If we posit a God who is omniscient and omnipotent, then we should have no difficulty in understanding how he could have an even clearer foreknowledge of those who will use their freedom to contribute to his intended outcome, as well as an even greater power to ensure that they are situated at the right place and time to cooperate with him in fulfilling his divine plan.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8274093482218734373.post-4643174001040888732017-10-05T21:08:00.002-07:002017-10-05T21:08:52.721-07:00Loving One's Enemies<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">"A certain monk went to Abba Silouan and said to him: 'Father, I have an enemy who has done me many injuries; he seized my land before I left the world, and he often sought to harm me, and now he has hired sorcerers to poison me. Therefore, I am thinking of turning him into the magistrate.' The Elder responded: 'Do as you please, my son.' The brother continued: 'In fact, Abba, his soul will benefit greatly if he is punished.' 'Do as you think best, my son,' repeated the Elder. At that the brother said: 'Arise, Father, let us offer a prayer and then I shall go to the magistrate.' They got up and as they prayed...the Elder said: 'And forgive us not our trespasses, as we forgive not those who trespass against us.' 'Father, that is not how it goes,' interrupted the brother. 'Yes it is, my son. In fact, if you want to go to the magistrate and seek justice for yourself, Silouan has no other prayer to say for you.' Upon hearing this, the brother made a prostration and forgave his enemy." </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">- Evergetinos, Hypothesis 37 (quoted in Hieromonk Gregorios, Love Your Enemies)</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com